You know, I have never been a fan of clay season tbh... But after this week, I am even less a fan of clay tennis... This is just slow, slow, slow!!! and BORING!!! I mean, Let's see Nadal vs. Dimitrov match, some quality points, but very freaking boring.. Congrats to Rafa on winning the match, but this match and all matches this week only goes to show how boring clay tennis is...

I know everybody has his/her preferences, but I really don't get why people LOVE clay tennis, is just SLOOW. There is no skill whatsoever, just massive top spin, and grinding, grinding, grinding!! I know this is just my opinion, but that is just how I see it.. let's put the ball in play with massive top spin and let the other make the mistake, why apply skills on clay if it is too slow and everybody can get to the ball? Intelligent clay tennis is be fit and endure 4 hours running, putting the ball into play and try to hit massive top spin... In the end, your oponent will miss one, let's just wait for that to happen!! Come on!! What was it... 15 WINNERS IN THE ENTIRE MATCH?? BETWEEN THE 2 OF THEM? BORING!

I don't like clay as much as other surfaces for some of the same reasons you've outlined.

If a ball is hit hard to the corner it shouldn't be so slow that it isn't a winner most the time.Players give up on that type of shot for the most part, some do like that kind of game however.

I will watch many of those matches on clay though especially if I have a favorite player in the mix or a good matchup.

Yeah, I know some do like that game, although I don't understand why.. LOL.. I mean, people in the past were complaining about how fast the ball played, how S&V was boring, 2 shots and the point was over, serve, volley and that was it... Well, this kind of applies to clay tennis as well, although the other way around... endless points, grinding type of play, wait for mistakes and it makes it extremely boring... We are talking about opposite type of play, on one hand you get seriously fast balls and on the other extremely slow balls.. what gives? I can't believe really people loving clay tennis instead of Hard Court matches where the ball is fast enough to make winners and not fast enough for S&V... Anyway, to each his own, and I will watch clay tennis when there are interesting matchups or my favorite players, but that's it for me...

Clay isn't a problem for me. I don't particularly like typical clay tennis but slow surfaces, just like fast surfaces, belong to tennis. But what I don't like is slow hardcourts like Miami, that was a disgrace for a HC. Hardcourts should be medium-paced, slow HCs kill players knees.

I'd be happy if one third of points available would be on clay, one third on outdoor hardcourts, and one third on fast grass and indoor courts.

Clay isn't a problem for me. I don't particularly like typical clay tennis but slow surfaces, just like fast surfaces, belong to tennis. But what I don't like is slow hardcourts like Miami, that was a disgrace for a HC. Hardcourts should be medium-paced, slow HCs kill players knees.

I'd be happy if one third of points available would be on clay, one third on outdoor hardcourts, and one third on fast grass and indoor courts.

Clay isn't a problem for me. I don't particularly like typical clay tennis but slow surfaces, just like fast surfaces, belong to tennis. But what I don't like is slow hardcourts like Miami, that was a disgrace for a HC. Hardcourts should be medium-paced, slow HCs kill players knees.

I'd be happy if one third of points available would be on clay, one third on outdoor hardcourts, and one third on fast grass and indoor courts.

Clay isn't a problem for me. I don't particularly like typical clay tennis but slow surfaces, just like fast surfaces, belong to tennis. But what I don't like is slow hardcourts like Miami, that was a disgrace for a HC. Hardcourts should be medium-paced, slow HCs kill players knees.

I'd be happy if one third of points available would be on clay, one third on outdoor hardcourts, and one third on fast grass and indoor courts.

True, slow and fast surfaces are part of tennis now. But you hit a sensible point on my opinion. Even is slow and fast surfaces are a part of tennis, then why slow down HCs and even grass? Yeah, we can go into the whole debacle about raquet technology, evolution itself and whatnot, but fast grass was a part of tennis for over 2-3 decades and now it just plays as very fast clay! That, I don't get. As I don't get why they slowed than Miami and other HCs, heck they have even slowed down some Clay events. I don't mind slow surfaces, but tbh, this is just ridiculous!

Clay isn't a problem for me. I don't particularly like typical clay tennis but slow surfaces, just like fast surfaces, belong to tennis. But what I don't like is slow hardcourts like Miami, that was a disgrace for a HC. Hardcourts should be medium-paced, slow HCs kill players knees.

I'd be happy if one third of points available would be on clay, one third on outdoor hardcourts, and one third on fast grass and indoor courts.

True, slow and fast surfaces are part of tennis now. But you hit a sensible point on my opinion. Even is slow and fast surfaces are a part of tennis, then why slow down HCs and even grass? Yeah, we can go into the whole debacle about raquet technology, evolution itself and whatnot, but fast grass was a part of tennis for over 2-3 decades and now it just plays as very fast clay! That, I don't get. As I don't get why they slowed than Miami and other HCs, heck they have even slowed down some Clay events. I don't mind slow surfaces, but tbh, this is just ridiculous!

I think the reason for slowing down surfaces has been to prevent acefests on grass and indoor courts, one reason for why they replaced indoor carpet with normal HCs. And I wouldn't necessarily say clay is slowed down, I've rather often read that clay is now faster than it used to be. One purpose for this might be to homoginize the surfaces as much as possible to have the same players succeeding everywhere. Here's a digram about the number of final eight players number between AO '90 and RG '12.

Much less players make GS QFs nowadays than in late 90s. It can be because of the surface homogenization. Or maybe the surface isn't as big a factor in today's game. Or maybe the top players have such a great all-round game.

But surface homogenization is one sad consequence of the commecialization of the sport as well as no best-of-five in M1000 finals and no-ad rule plus match TB in doubles. Big crowd rather watches long rallies in Wimbledon than a S&V show. And they want to see the big names playing in SFs and finals. I'm excited about Tsonga and The Fog playing at MC semis but big crowd would've rather seen Federer and Murray in SFs besided Rafa and Nole.

I get your point. And in my point of view it's right on the money. Surface homogenization has played a great part in today's tennis, and that, on my point of view and personal preference, has just made GSs "predictable". Sure people would want to have Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in SF as opposed to watch a Federer vs. Gonzales (AO Final). But that's the beauty of the sport, having upsets on any given day, having great matches from people you don't expect. I mean, I, as a tennis fan, would rather have an "unpredictable" GS than what we have today. For example, if Agassi would be playing today, he would have "probably" accomplished more in Wimbledon, or some other events. I am not a GREAT fan of S&V, I would rather have some long and some short rallies. You talk about the top dogs having an all around game. I differ from this opinion. For example, Rafa is a warrior on court, his speed, his movement and his reaction time are amazing, but he is lacking on volleys. Murray has an all around game, or even Djokovic, but they don't come to the net very often. Let's recap here, when in the 90s, on Wimbledon, 80% of the points were won (or lost) on the net. Now, it's all about the baseline... There are PLENTY of players who know just the "basics" about volleying and they are getting to Wimbledon QFs or even SFs, and that wouldn't have happened in the 90s not even with today's players. Players today are really looking into fitness and forgetting about learning new tricks or new skills, why would they? They don't need them. And that is why I don't like surface homogenization, they are taking some skills out of tennis.

I think I should just accept it and move on, after all tennis is a business and it is just OBVIOUS than with today's tennis, business is blooming and getting their desired SFs at GS. That's all there is, if you would say that they are doing it for the players I would still complain but would understand somewhat, but it's all about the business and having TV Ratings, selling out tickets for the MUCH EXPECTED SFs at GSs and whatnot, it doesn't have to do with quality tennis anymore.

In the end, I just don't get it and I don't like it. I would rather have players like the 90s, where Bruguera can go to win RG but would have no chance at Wimbledon, or like Edberg with his beautiful volleys that wouldn't stand much of a chance at RG than Nadal, Murray, Fed and Nole taking everything home, this is getting harder for new comers, now background accounts for nothing and the surface where you "grew" up is just another regular information.. That's what I am saying.

I get your point. And in my point of view it's right on the money. Surface homogenization has played a great part in today's tennis, and that, on my point of view and personal preference, has just made GSs "predictable". Sure people would want to have Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in SF as opposed to watch a Federer vs. Gonzales (AO Final). But that's the beauty of the sport, having upsets on any given day, having great matches from people you don't expect. I mean, I, as a tennis fan, would rather have an "unpredictable" GS than what we have today. For example, if Agassi would be playing today, he would have "probably" accomplished more in Wimbledon, or some other events. I am not a GREAT fan of S&V, I would rather have some long and some short rallies. You talk about the top dogs having an all around game. I differ from this opinion. For example, Rafa is a warrior on court, his speed, his movement and his reaction time are amazing, but he is lacking on volleys. Murray has an all around game, or even Djokovic, but they don't come to the net very often. Let's recap here, when in the 90s, on Wimbledon, 80% of the points were won (or lost) on the net. Now, it's all about the baseline... There are PLENTY of players who know just the "basics" about volleying and they are getting to Wimbledon QFs or even SFs, and that wouldn't have happened in the 90s not even with today's players. Players today are really looking into fitness and forgetting about learning new tricks or new skills, why would they? They don't need them. And that is why I don't like surface homogenization, they are taking some skills out of tennis.

I think I should just accept it and move on, after all tennis is a business and it is just OBVIOUS than with today's tennis, business is blooming and getting their desired SFs at GS. That's all there is, if you would say that they are doing it for the players I would still complain but would understand somewhat, but it's all about the business and having TV Ratings, selling out tickets for the MUCH EXPECTED SFs at GSs and whatnot, it doesn't have to do with quality tennis anymore.

In the end, I just don't get it and I don't like it. I would rather have players like the 90s, where Bruguera can go to win RG but would have no chance at Wimbledon, or like Edberg with his beautiful volleys that wouldn't stand much of a chance at RG than Nadal, Murray, Fed and Nole taking everything home, this is getting harder for new comers, now background accounts for nothing and the surface where you "grew" up is just another regular information.. That's what I am saying.

Obviously, you are lost.

Surface "homogenization" is kind of an unicorn claimed to be seen by old folklore.

You can't make grass play like clay, you can't make hards play like clay nor you can speed up clay up to behave grass. If that was the case, Venus would have won an AO and FO.....Nadal would have at least 5+ UO and AO and Federer would have split his encounter with Rafa at the French.

The only thing I agree with, the HCs needs to be speed up again. It's obvious today's emphasis on conditioning and the incredible defensive skills of the top players has surpassed equipment technology to the point 5 plus hours matches are to expected.

For the record, in the 90s early 00s you had top players with glaring holes in their game profile which allowed the Moyas and Brugueras to win French Open titles. In the other spectrum, the clay dogs were just that; dogs......incomplete players that excel in the only surface where the elites couldn't hack it. That wasn't the case in 60s, 70s, and 80s. Just look at the list of French Open champions and finalists

I get your point. And in my point of view it's right on the money. Surface homogenization has played a great part in today's tennis, and that, on my point of view and personal preference, has just made GSs "predictable". Sure people would want to have Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray in SF as opposed to watch a Federer vs. Gonzales (AO Final). But that's the beauty of the sport, having upsets on any given day, having great matches from people you don't expect. I mean, I, as a tennis fan, would rather have an "unpredictable" GS than what we have today. For example, if Agassi would be playing today, he would have "probably" accomplished more in Wimbledon, or some other events. I am not a GREAT fan of S&V, I would rather have some long and some short rallies. You talk about the top dogs having an all around game. I differ from this opinion. For example, Rafa is a warrior on court, his speed, his movement and his reaction time are amazing, but he is lacking on volleys. Murray has an all around game, or even Djokovic, but they don't come to the net very often. Let's recap here, when in the 90s, on Wimbledon, 80% of the points were won (or lost) on the net. Now, it's all about the baseline... There are PLENTY of players who know just the "basics" about volleying and they are getting to Wimbledon QFs or even SFs, and that wouldn't have happened in the 90s not even with today's players. Players today are really looking into fitness and forgetting about learning new tricks or new skills, why would they? They don't need them. And that is why I don't like surface homogenization, they are taking some skills out of tennis.

I think I should just accept it and move on, after all tennis is a business and it is just OBVIOUS than with today's tennis, business is blooming and getting their desired SFs at GS. That's all there is, if you would say that they are doing it for the players I would still complain but would understand somewhat, but it's all about the business and having TV Ratings, selling out tickets for the MUCH EXPECTED SFs at GSs and whatnot, it doesn't have to do with quality tennis anymore.

In the end, I just don't get it and I don't like it. I would rather have players like the 90s, where Bruguera can go to win RG but would have no chance at Wimbledon, or like Edberg with his beautiful volleys that wouldn't stand much of a chance at RG than Nadal, Murray, Fed and Nole taking everything home, this is getting harder for new comers, now background accounts for nothing and the surface where you "grew" up is just another regular information.. That's what I am saying.

Obviously, you are lost.

Surface "homogenization" is kind of an unicorn claimed to be seen by old folklore.

You can't make grass play like clay, you can't make hards play like clay nor you can speed up clay up to behave grass. If that was the case, Venus would have won an AO and FO.....Nadal would have at least 5+ UO and AO and Federer would have split his encounter with Rafa at the French.

The only thing I agree with, the HCs needs to be speed up again. It's obvious today's emphasis on conditioning and the incredible defensive skills of the top players has surpassed equipment technology to the point 5 plus hours matches are to expected.

For the record, in the 90s early 00s you had top players with glaring holes in their game profile which allowed the Moyas and Brugueras to win French Open titles. In the other spectrum, the clay dogs were just that; dogs......incomplete players that excel in the only surface where the elites couldn't hack it. That wasn't the case in 60s, 70s, and 80s. Just look at the list of French Open champions and finalists

Yeah, you can't make clay and grass may completely similarly, they are two different surfaces. But you can bring the closer to each other, and that has happened. Here's an article where the Wimbledon groundsman says the grass isn't slower but the bounce is higher.

Of course it's said nowhere but one reason for faster falls might be to speed up clay game to make it closer to HC game. Similarly, Wimbledon has heavy balls to slow down the grass game.

And I think a reason why '90s greats were often bad on clay was that it was the decade when surfaces played more differently than ever. And as USO was fast HC and AO a medium-paced HC, it was natural that good HC players were good on grass, not on clay.